Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

My view is that is the central issue - what should the role and functions of Federal Government be - and it is clearly defined in the US Constitution. Roles and functions are few, and are limited by the Constitution. That the Congress over the years has fashioned an intrusive federal establishment that tinkers with the environment, corporations, schools, health care, transportation, information distribution and much more is a serious problem.

I see your point, Jeff. I don't always agree with the fear of it, but I still guess I just don't see how that's a left/right issue. These general trends are there regardless of which side has power over this body or that body.

[froot loops]

The constitution was a compromise document made to improve the country because the Articles were way too weak. Why does everyone come back to what the founders envisioned? They were just guys. And immediately they started adding powers to the Federal government after the constitution was ratified. Plus not all these guys were for limited government.

If they did really envision limited government it certainly wasn't written like it. It is certainly open ended in allowing the Legislature to operate.

[iam416]

Boy, that reads like you really don't give a shit about the Constitution.

Our country almost immediately took steps to limit Federal power both vis-a-vis individuals and the states. Bill of Rights and such. 10th and 11th Amendments and such.

Now, they did it through the proscribed process -- you know, amending the thing.

I don't think the significant changes start until much later. I think most historians would agree there are two Republics based on the power of the Federal Govt: antebellum and postbellum. Arguably a third post New Deal, but I tend to think it was a continuation of the post-bellum stuff. But the point is that the power re-allocation didn't begin in earnest for decades.

In any event, whether the Constitution was a "compromise" or not is rather irrelevant. It's the law. Nearly ever law has some sort of compromise to it. That makes the law no less valid. And in a CONSTITUTIONAL fucking Republic, the Constitution ought to count for something.

I think there's a strong argument to retract Executive branch powers via the Administrative state. It's strong on the law and facts on the ground.

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ Why does everyone come back to what the founders envisioned? They were just guys. ......

Because what they envisioned was laid out in the Constitution.

The point I'm making here is not about what "these guys" saw as the role of Government in the 18th century leading up to the Declaration - very different times and different motivating factors that played a role in the establishment of a Federal Government as it was defined in the US Constitution - but rather how significantly the role (and regulatory authority) of the Federal Government has expanded.

Historically, I think you can argue that the Republic has increasingly become a nanny state and that is absolutely not the role that the founders envisioned .... not even close and, in fact, the direct opposite. Why?

Because - in both their strictest definitions - Liberal ideology has predominated while Conservative ideology has played a much less important role in fashioning the authority and power of US Government via the legislative process and, unfortunately, the courts through their various interpretive rulings that are more political than they are good readings of the law.

Moreover, the traditional purveyors of Conservative Ideology, the Rs, have managed to completely lose their way with regard to influencing the legislative process in ways that reduce the intrusiveness of the Fed in the lives of US Citizens. The courts are equally guilty here too being influenced to a great extent by the liberalism that is so pervasive among those that practice law and ultimately rise to the bench.

In my view, these are the most significant contributors to the slide of the US towards the nanny state it is undoubtedly becoming. Too put this into the context of the current debate about the Presidential candidates, neither candidate has sufficient substance to reduce this trend in any meaningful way. Hillary Clinton because she is, at baseline, a "flaming liberal" (interpret that as you will) and because Donald Trump lacks the intellect to discern the difference between liberalism and conservatism in fashioning a functional platform from which he will lead as President. We should all be very concerned about this.

[Wild Hoss]

Conservative ideology, in the strict sense that status quo is ideal, will always lose because its unrealistic. Society changes.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[hack]

Arguably conservatism in this country isn't that. It's really neoliberalism. But I hate the terms. The word socialism as its used has lost all connection to the original definition. Liberal, market, capitalist, etc. etc. -- using these words hurts informed debate.

[Ghengis Jon]

Last week, Vladimir Putin formed a private security force comprised of special forces, counter-intelligence and troops from the Interior Ministry, run by Putin's former top bodyguard. And answerable only to Putin. Anyone see any parallels?

[hack]

Yes -- fits with pretty much everything else Putin does.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Arguably conservatism in this country isn't that. It's really neoliberalism. But I hate the terms. The word socialism as its used has lost all connection to the original definition. Liberal, market, capitalist, etc. etc. -- using these words hurts informed debate.

I think I get what you're saying and I tend to agree. Any political debate has to involve agreement on the meaning of terms that are going to form the basis of the discussion.

I don't find the terms conservatism and liberalism applied to either economic or social policy terribly difficult to agree on as long as participants in a debate agree on the particular time frame, culture and governmental framework within which the debate is being carried out. Nod in Hoss's direction regarding his last post.

It's true that conservatives in Britain would use that term differently than Americans calling themselves conservatives. Same with Liberals. However, if your arguing politics and policy in the framework of the 2016 election cycle, participants can surely come to some reasonable agreement on what these terms mean.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm with Hannibal on (1) thru (3). I see nothing but an increase in administrative law and the regulatory state. From a legal perspective, I think the deference given agency statutory interpretation and agency power to enact congressional "will" is hugely important. I don't think the executive branch has ever had more power.

I agree with you that (4) is certainly a shift toward the right - in the sense free trade is a conservative issue.

Finally, unions are a complex issue because their usefulness is waning -- or at least there's an argument to be made. I'd agree that unions are viewed less favorably today than, say, in the 1960s. They're probably more favorably viewed than, say, in the 1890s. Heh.

So, I think you're right on (4) and (5). I respectfully disagree about regulatory power. And thanks for making the argument.

We may have to disagree on 1 through 3 then. Perhaps some industries most exposed to EPA regulation are under more direct govt control (i.e. mining, energy). But i think it's pretty hard to argue that the govt interferes in the three sectors I mentioned more than in the 1970's. The airlines have been completely deregulated and prices no longer controlled by the govt. FCC regulations have been considerably relaxed, tv stations are now allowed to report ratings for news, and the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Banking and insurance saw tremendous deregulation through the 80's though I'm willing to acknowledge there's increasing blowback against both. The pendulum may have swung back the other direction or is about to do so. I'm sure we could come up with examples of others for both sides.

[iam416]

Yeah, np. Disagreement is cool. Examples of both, but overall tend to think more.

War McGriddle!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hillary to Bush donors: I'm a lot like you

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872

[edindetroit]

LOL!

[Da Geezer]

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

While he was a racist old white slave owner, I still think Jefferson deserves some deference in matters of government.

[SeattleLionsFan]

sorry I'm late to the party, but I think the current regulatory scheme is pretty close to the system warned about in Atlas Shrugged. There is more regulation than ever. However, much of it is aimed at protecting corporate interests instead of people or new businesses. That's what happens when the corporate interests write the regulations.